Akali Leader Bikram Majithia's 'Prove Or Apologise' Warning To AAP On Drug Case

A fresh political confrontation has erupted between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and senior Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Bikram Singh Majithia, who on Tuesday accused AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann of misleading Punjabis by linking his disproportionate assets (DA) case to allegations of drug trafficking.

Addressing a press conference, Majithia alleged that the AAP government was attempting to divert public attention from Punjab's law-and-order situation and other pressing issues by repeatedly associating his name with the drug case. He challenged Kejriwal and Mann to produce concrete evidence of his alleged involvement in drug trafficking, asserting that the government should rely on the actual court record rather than political statements.

Majithia claimed that the government had failed to establish a direct or indirect link between him and the alleged drug money of Rs 736 crore. He also questioned the evidence cited against him, including allegations relating to vehicles and financial transactions.

Recalling Kejriwal's apology in 2018 over allegations against him at the time, Majithia accused the AAP leadership of reviving similar accusations for political gains. He said Kejriwal had submitted an apology before a court and undertaken not to repeat such allegations.

"My lawyer has presented all the facts before the court and separated truth from falsehood," Majithia said. He alleged that four special investigation teams (SITs) had been constituted to pursue the allegations against him but had failed to establish the claims he was disputing.

A central point of Majithia's press conference was his contention that the disproportionate assets case and the drug-related proceedings were separate matters and should not be presented as interchangeable. His lawyer, DS Sobti, argued that documents or financial transactions cited in the DA case could not automatically be treated as evidence of drug trafficking without examining their legal status and relevance to the allegations. Sobti referred to proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, including observations and orders concerning the matter. He also invoked the stringent bail provisions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, arguing that public claims should be assessed against the actual judicial record.

The lawyer questioned the figures being circulated in connection with properties, financial transactions and alleged illegal income. He maintained that the source of funds, the nature of transactions and the legal relationship between Majithia and the entities concerned needed to be established through evidence.

Majithia also alleged that the government's statements outside court differed from its submissions during legal proceedings. He challenged the AAP leadership to make any fresh evidence public through the appropriate legal process.

Turning his attack towards the Mann government, Majithia alleged that the AAP leadership was using his case to divert attention from Punjab's deteriorating law-and-order situation and the continuing concerns over drugs. He argued that the government should answer questions about drug trafficking and other incidents in the state instead of repeatedly raising allegations against him.

Majithia said he was prepared to face investigation and legal proceedings, challenging the AAP leadership to substantiate its allegations with evidence or apologise.